‘Hunger Games’ pandering, not provocative

April 1, 2012

Updated Aug. 21, 2013 12:28 p.m.

1 of 1

High school kids wait in line for the 12:01 a.m. showing of the Hunger Games movie at the Irvine Spectrum on its opening day two weeks ago. One of their mom's sat in line from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. when the first teenager could arrive to save their spots. FRANK MICKADEIT, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

High school kids wait in line for the 12:01 a.m. showing of the Hunger Games movie at the Irvine Spectrum on its opening day two weeks ago. One of their mom's sat in line from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. when the first teenager could arrive to save their spots. FRANK MICKADEIT, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Have movies really hit the point that to register on teens' bombarded information-intake systems, Hollywood must make a film about kids slaughtering kids for sport?

I would have written off my experience with the "The Hunger Games" as my own inability to connect with the culture. But the movie stuck with me all weekend as I considered its depraved plot versus its wild success – the third-biggest U.S. opening ever.

The plot is, basically, "Coal Miner's Daughter" meets "Mad Max," in which a teen heroine is battles 23 other kids to the death under the mandate of an evil government.

I concede that one way to look at this movie is that it is the first in a series that might culminate in some overarching message that justifies the plot. There's a whole group of kids (and adults) who go to the movie knowing how the whole thing is going to play out.

But "The Hunger Games" is not marketed that way. There's nothing in the ads to suggest there's something here that will end up justifying putting such a topic to celluloid. Therefore, I examine it as a one-off, film-only experience, the context in which I invested $11 and more than two hours.

I kept waiting for that redemptive quality of extraordinary storytelling, of filmmaking, of acting – of something – that made the extraordinary horror of the plot worth it. Never got it.

This wasn't even an attempt at edgy adult-targeted art, like, say, "A Clockwork Orange," the Stanley Kubrick film, which is also based on a book about extremely disturbing teen violence. "The Hunger Games" is teen-targeted filmmaking that might make the unwary parent think it nothing more harrowing than the bloodless sorcery in "Harry Potter" films.

Disturbing movies that tackle the depths of man's inhumanity to man, that graphically show the moral meltdowns of a society, are important and appropriate. "Schindler's List" is the most difficult movie I've sat through. But it was masterfully made. It was rated R. "The Hunger Games" is rated PG-13. To its credit, the ads warn it contains "intense violent thematic material and disturbing images – all involving teens." But there's no outright bar to the less-than-mature kid.

Maybe I'm offended because "The Hunger Games" doesn't go far enough. It cynically lures in the moviegoer with a provocative topic but doesn't show the complete horror of what it purports to contemplate. You want to really portray the breakdown of a society? Take the filters off the blurry butchery. Do away with the cartoonish, stock-character Evil Leader (Donald Sutherland) and make him Joseph Mengele. That would be daring. This feels more like pandering.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.